Professional journalism groups reacted with alarm after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas released an opinion Tuesday urging the high court to reconsider a landmark freedom of the press decision called New York Times v. Sullivan.

The Sullivan ruling generally shields reporters and news platforms from libel or defamation lawsuits provided they were acting in good faith. Though journalists believe that protection is essential, Justice Thomas said the high court was wrong to usurp the role of states in regulating libel.

We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy-driven approach to the Constitution, Thomas added. Instead, we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Maybe journalist should police themselves. They have become partisan shills, and 99% of them democrats that would and are doing anything they can to advance their political goals. They have no honor or scruples.

As usual, Justice Thomas is right. Sullivan violated the Equal Protection clause. The Supreme Court arbitrarily and unilaterally created a different libel standard for public vs private citizens. It had no authority or constitutional basis for doing so.

Oh no! How dare he bring up the actual Constitution as a guide for rulings! Next, he will say that the Constitution does not give women the right to murder their babies before and after birth. Oh, the humanity.....

I think I get it. The press somehow expects protection from lawsuits, in the same that way that judges and prosecutors have some type of protection, even when they screw up or intentionally mislead. So, they can continue to ruin lives and push fake news, without fear of any pushback. Liberals at their finest. Tilting the scales in their favor, thru the courts and government shills because they’d lose otherwise, if they were eve held accountable.

As usual, Justice Thomas is right. Sullivan violated the Equal Protection clause. The Supreme Court arbitrarily and unilaterally created a different libel standard for public vs private citizens. It had no authority or constitutional basis for doing so.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Just what, by the way, is a journalist? Just who, btw, is a member of the media?

If I wear a badge around my neck on a lanyard with the words "Daily Planet," does this somehow give me rights and protections my neighbor without the badge does not share?

No. Like the militia, every citizen is a member. Or rather, there is ZERO constitutional grounding of something we call journalism. If I write a report and read it from a soapbox on the street corner, then I am a journalist.

The Sullivan ruling “generally” shields reporters and news platforms from libel or defamation lawsuits “provided they were acting in good faith”.

So if they were not acting in good faith than they are not protected. I would say there have been numerous examples of recent acts in which the press was not acting in good faith and were pushing a false narrative.

Yes. A free press is needed. But any blatant lies told by the free press that effects both individuals and political contol should be liable for severe slander judgements in the tune of many millions of dollars and even prison time. Report news have opinions but lie and slander and get punishment

16
posted on 02/22/2019 2:01:38 PM PST
by Vaquero
(Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you .)

More specifically, Jefferson wrote that the states had made 10A in part to clarify that the states have reserved for themselves the powers to limit the freedoms that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, regardless that they made 1st Amendment to prohibit Congress from having such powers.

3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that -the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people-: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; . . .  - Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

Next, noting that the states later ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) partly to give the feds the power to limit how far the states can limit the rights that the states amend the Constitution to expressly protect, please consider the following.

The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had clarified that while 14A puts reasonable limits on state powers to make laws that limit constitutionally enumerated rights, 14A does not take such powers away.

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. [emphasis added] I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

Justice Reed had put it this way about 10A-protected state powers versus 14A protections. He had noted that it was the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

Getting back to Justice Thomas's concern that the states, not the Supremes, should be deciding how constitutionally enumerated rights should be limited (as Jefferson had indicated), please consider the following.

Patriots are reminded that corrupt Congress gets around its 1st Amendment-prohibited powers by letting post-17th Amendment ratification senators get away with confirming state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court activist justices. These corrupt justices then steal state powers to legislate vote-winning, politically correct laws from the bench that Congress cannot make.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.